5.5 week SD not enough :(

M

MaFi0s0

New Member
This study flies in the face of SDing.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x56028242440g156/

Summary The purpose of this study was to observe fiber area changes that might occur in the same subject from two opposing resistance-exercise training regimes isolating the quadriceps muscle group. Twelve college-age men divided into two groups participated in each of two 7.5-week regimens; one performed a muscular strength program (high-resistance, low-repetition) 4 days a week on a resistance-exercise apparatus, while the other performed a muscular endurance (low-resistance, high-repetition) program. After a 5.5-week hiatus, the groups changed regimens for the second 7.5 weeks. Closed-needle biopsies of the dominant vastus lateralis and isokinetic dynamometer evaluations were made before and at the end of each training period. The muscle samples were analyzed for area changes. In both groups the initial exercise stimulus, whether for strength or endurance, increased the area of fibers of all three major types (I, IIA, and IIB). Subjects doing strength exercises as their second treatment showed a further increase in the area of type I and IIB fibers, whereas those doing endurance exercises showed a decrease in all fiber types. From the first to the last biopsy all fiber areas were decreased (P<0.05) in the control-strength-endurance group and increased (P<0.05) in the control-endurance-strength group. These results suggested that endurance exercise preceding strength exercise in an isolated muscle group maximized fiber area adaptations to exercise stress. Consideration should thus be given in exercise and rehabilitation programs to the muscle cellular adaptations evidenced in different orders of training, particularly if muscular strength is considered important.
 
This study indicates that in the above study they would of been using a maximum of around 15 reps not a ridiculous amount of reps:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t96qmxyaa7x7le0c/

Abstract. Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength–endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n=9) performing 3–5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n=11) performing 9–11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n=7) performing 20–28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n=5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength–endurance continuum".
 
Endurance training vs strength training

Great post MaFi0s0. I'm not sure if anything is flying in our faces though. What this study tells us is that training with light loads is not going to make you grow as much as training with heavier loads. I think we all knew this already though. These researchers were trying to separate the distinct physiological adaptive processes that occur with endurance training vs "strength" training. The endurance training consisted of 30 minutes of continual leg extensions using 15-25% 1RM at a pace of about 20 movements/minute. In stark contrast the strength training was 5 sets of 4 reps with a two minute rest. Both groups did this 4 times per week. So the endurance group did 600 reps per set and the strength group did 4. As you might expect, the 600 rep group lost some of their gains they made when they did the strength training. Noth surprising at all.

I think what you might have been looking for is some indication that the light weights could replace the heavy weights after several weeks off. If this were true we would never have to increase the weights so quickly after SD.

Although it is still my contention that taking a couple (or more) weeks off of training will help to re-sensitize the tissue to being loaded, the weight loads must still quickly increase or the muscle will adapt to the lighter loads. Since the time of this study’s publication there has been several studies showing fibers shrinking as an adaptation to endurance training. This is believed to help with the transport of oxidative by products (less distance for things to travel to get in and out of the cell).

The 15 rep block at the beginning of an HST cycle is not intended to be endurance training and heaven forbid we do something that would make us shrink! Sticking with really light weights for two months is never going to replace training heavy, regardless of what somebody told you about SD.

The goal of the 15 rep block is to start a loading cycle with the minimum effective load. The goal is also to train in such a way as to cause significant temporary alterations in pH and levels of glycolytic by products. Finally, for us geezers the goal is to prepare the joints like a sort of planned rehab for the later heavier loads to come. Yes it is true that many new lifters grow quite well during this block but that shouldn’t surprise anybody familiar with the research on untrained lifters. However, it is not true, as some would have you think, that I believe or propose that a 2 week lay-off will reverse the tissue’s conditioning all the way back to the way it was before you ever started lifting. This simply isn’t true and there is plenty of research demonstrating the effects of the RBE lasting many weeks.
 
Last edited:
The two studies aren't exactly related...

Another one of my favorite studies MaFi0s0!

Here is a statement as simple as I can make it on fiber types and training: “All muscle fibers undergo hypertrophy with increasing loads.”

That’s as simple as I can make it. There is no need to train “according” to some presumed ratio of fiber types that one is guessing they have if hypertrophy is your goal. Besides, fiber types (MHCs) are “induced” by the type of training you do. The type of MHC that a given fiber produces is largely a result of what you make that fiber habitually do through neural activity. MHC characteristics of any given muscle are constantly changing according to what it is forced to do. So if you begin to train with higher exhausting reps thinking you are making your type-Is grow, all you are doing is creating greater type-I fiber characteristics in your muscles.

Now, with respect to the study that MaFi0s0 shared with us; they used an 8-week high-intensity training program for the legs. Workouts were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. The subjects used one of three different regimens. The different training regimens were designed to be approximately equal in volume (resistance x repetitions x sets) with the rest periods between sets and exercises adjusted according to the strength-endurance continuum. Therefore, those individuals working on the high-rep end of the continuum performed fewer sets and had shorter rest periods compared with the other training groups.

The exercises were performed in the fixed order of leg press, squat, and knee extension. After warming up:

• The Low-Rep group used their 3-5RM for four sets with 3 min rest between sets and exercises.

• The Intermediate-Rep group used their 9-11RM for three sets with 2 min rest.

• The High-Rep group used their 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest.

During the study, the resistance was progressively increased as subjects were able to perform more reps in order to ensure subjects were always using their true RM for each rep range. This is an important detail.

So what happened? Did the type-I fibers increase most in the high-rep group? Did only the type-II fibers hypertrophy in the low rep group? If you believe you must do high reps for type-I fibers to grow and low reps for type-II fibers to grow then that’s exactly what should have happened!

On the other hand, if hypertrophy is a matter of load, and all fibers hypertrophy in response to increasing load, then hypertrophy should go up as load goes up. In other words the group that finished the 8 weeks of training lifting the heaviest relative weight should have experienced the greatest amount of hypertrophy in ALL fiber types irrespective of the number of reps (within reason). And that is exactly what happened.

Here is a breakdown of the hypertrophy caused by each rep range. [Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
• pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
• pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
• pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
• pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
• pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
• pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)

Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
• pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
• pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
• pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)

Should these surprise anybody? No, but they still do. Even light loads (20-28 reps) will make an untrained lifter grow…for a while. Progressing the loads however while maintaining volume leads to greater hypertrophy regardless of fiber type. This is why a person can’t continue to train in the higher rep ranges and expect to grow to full potential.

These results seem to confirm the picture created by Wernbom’s analysis. Hypertrophy nearly doubles going from 20-28 reps to 9-11 reps, but then there is little additional growth going from 9-11 reps to 3-5 reps. This confirms a threshold mechanism at work when looking at the effects of different rep ranges and hypertrophy. Once you cross the threshold for triggering growth, doing more isn’t necessarily going to give you better results.

It also doesn’t surprise me that these researchers were confused by the fact that the low rep group had as much or more hypertrophy as the other groups. They too have the idea cemented in their brain that you can’t use low reps to stimulate hypertrophy. The strength training dogma of the past has deeply influenced even the research community with regard to hypertrophy. This has done nothing but hinder their progress in understanding it because they end up designing studies on false premises.
 
Thanks Bryan, I knew you could clarify this, its tough not having access to the actual study as oppose to just the summary.
 
I was going over this again, I have a feeling this is an unanswered question but will ask anyway, why is it 10-11 reps produces the most GH response when 3-5 produces the most hypertrophy? Even though the GH response from training doesn't create more muscle growth itself, wouldnt GH being present at higher levels indicate greater growth from the stimulus, for example squats producing greater GH response compared to bicep curls.
 
GH release is indicative of metabolic demand. You can triple GH release by taking nicotinic before you train...but that doesn't mean you have created a greater growth stimulus.
 
Cool thanks, I was curious about this, as I thought about it more I kind of suspected that was the case as I came across a study where something like 5 sets of 15s was producing a lot of a GH response but obviously wouldn't of been anabolic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top